Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Takeoff Performance Of 757-300  
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5239 times:

I have been researching the 757-300 a bit, but was just wondering how the 753s takeoff performance was? More in line with the average airliner  wink  or still impressive. Going on thrust numbers alone tells me that the 753 with RB211-535E4Bs, or PW2043 if there were any, would still have excellent hot and high capabilities. But thrust isn't the only factor in takeoff performance. Have any of you flown both COs and NWs 753s, or any of the 753s in Europe??

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Compolo



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Starnes




We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
7 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2754 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5168 times:

The I've flown both CO and NW 753's and they still climb like a bat out of hell, even fully loaded.  Wink

In fact, I've seen some 753s fully loaded climb steeper than 752s.



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3600 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

While I haven't flown any 757-300s of Condor, I once watched a 753 take off from CGN. It took off earlier than the A320s and 737s before it, and had an impressive climb performance. However, I must note that I do not know the destination of that 757. It is possible that it flew to Fra, and in that case it would have been extremely light.

But I guess the 753 retained the good climb performance.


User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2698 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5113 times:

Here's what it is for NWA.

The engine is rated for a higher takeoff thrust for the 757-300 because it needs it.

The climb thrust, in order to keep some kind of warrantee they have for the engine maintenance, is the same as it is on the -200. So with the additional weight in payload but with no additional climb thrust to compensate, the 757-300 is a bit of a dog in the climb.


User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4976 times:

Thanks for the comments guys  thumbsup 

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 3):
Here's what it is for NWA.

The engine is rated for a higher takeoff thrust for the 757-300 because it needs it.

The climb thrust, in order to keep some kind of warrantee they have for the engine maintenance, is the same as it is on the -200. So with the additional weight in payload but with no additional climb thrust to compensate, the 757-300 is a bit of a dog in the climb.

I always wondered why NW opted for the PW2040 instead of the 2043. Their 753s are rated at 272K MTOW, and are etops rated, so why not go for the extra oomph to get you off the ground and buy you more range? Does NW operate their 753s to Hawaii?? And does the 753 have the range to do TATL?



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5470 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4967 times:

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 4):
why not go for the extra oomph to get you off the ground and buy you more range?

The extra thrust doesn't get you more range. It gets you shorter takeoff rolls and better climb, which only gets you more range (or payload) if you are runway length or climb performance restricted. I don't think NW operates 753s anywhere where those conditions apply. So why bother spending the extra money?

The 757-300 with any engine has a thrust/weight ratio that is quite good. It's not a rocket like the 752, but it does just fine -- it's not a "dog" compared to any plane but a 752 (or 73G).

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 4):
And does the 753 have the range to do TATL?


Not for nonstop scheduled service between most destinations. ATA used to use them for charters, but they'd have to stop westbound.

The 753 only has a slightly higher MTOW than the TATL 752 -- it's a pretty straightforward range-for-capacity swap.

[Edited 2008-07-31 10:00:08]

User currently offlineClipper136 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 318 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4791 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Reply 5):
The 757-300 with any engine has a thrust/weight ratio that is quite good. It's not a rocket like the 752, but it does just fine

I don't have exact climb numbers, but I have see quite a few 753's (usually CO) not being able to make a 2,400' crossing restriction 6 miles North of MCO while taking off on a 12,000' runway. Of course the aircraft was full of passengers, but only traveling approx 800 nm to EWR. (I'm not sure of the density alt at the time or if it was a derated take off, I'll have to note it next time)

By looking at the aircraft's AOA on take off, it may seem like a rocket, but its actually rate of climb may be something less impressive.


User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1452 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4761 times:



Quoting EA772LR (Thread starter):
Going on thrust numbers alone tells me that the 753 with RB211-535E4Bs, or PW2043 if there were any, would still have excellent hot and high capabilities.

Actually TZ's exclusively had the RB211-535E4C which was a specially uprated engine to allow for full gross Ops out of Midway.

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 3):
The climb thrust, in order to keep some kind of warrantee they have for the engine maintenance, is the same as it is on the -200. So with the additional weight in payload but with no additional climb thrust to compensate, the 757-300 is a bit of a dog in the climb.

After the bulk of TZ MDW Ops were ended and the 753s no longer operated out of there, I believe the 753 engines where de-rated to save on the power-by-the-hour engine mx contracts.

There were discussions last summer about possibly operating them on LAS-HNL, but they did not have the necessary payload/range during the hot operations. Also, winglets were discussed with APB at improving this and its TATL capabilities.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Takeoff Performance Of 757-300
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cockpit Of 757-300 posted Wed Aug 20 2003 00:12:14 by Vikkyvik
757-300 Overwing Exits - Removable Or Hinged? posted Wed Apr 23 2008 16:02:37 by 1337Delta764
Ultra-short-haul Performance Of The V2500 posted Sun Mar 30 2008 19:41:30 by Hawaiian717
767-400 Takeoff Performance posted Wed Apr 5 2006 23:48:41 by FLY777UAL
Boeing 757-300 Gas Consumption posted Thu Aug 18 2005 17:22:48 by Fly707
Takeoff Performance Figures - DUB -V- MAN posted Wed Jun 8 2005 20:22:03 by Kaitak
High And Hot Performance Of EMB 170/190 posted Sun Jan 2 2005 15:47:52 by Airline7322
J41 Takeoff Performance posted Sat Aug 7 2004 23:22:49 by FLY777UAL
Question About The A380 Takeoff Performance posted Wed Dec 31 2003 00:37:00 by PVD757
Squares On Bottom Of 757/767 posted Mon Aug 4 2003 22:37:20 by Cancidas

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format